Applying the Principles of Natural Law to Our Headlines I

Reject the Voices Of Those Warning Against Big Government & Tyranny

[NOTE:This is the first of what I hope will be an ongoing series of posts. From the time I first started to develop my idea for the RTC, I have intended to include this series in the blog. It is not enough to teach people the rules that govern Natural Law; you also have to help them understand how to apply them in real life. That’s what this series is intended to do. So, whenever you see one of these posts, you will find that it links to a story taken from the headlines of the day. It will also contain a brief comment from me with links to the several posts I have written which explain the specific aspects of Natural law which are being violated by the person(s) or event reported in the link. I hope you will find this series of value in helping you learn how to apply the principles and ideals I am trying to teach on this blog.]

Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems, nor do we want it to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

[…]

The cynics may be the loudest voices—but they accomplish the least. It’s the silent disruptors—those who do the long, hard, committed work of change—that gradually push this country in the right direction, and make the most lasting difference. [Emphasis added]

What you should take away from this story as it relates to your understanding of the principles and ideals governing Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract:

First, because government is nothing more than people charged to handle the business of the people, we must understand that those people are as susceptible to corruption and abusing their authority as any other. For this reason, government is a natural enemy of individual rights and liberty, and should always be held in suspicion (see: Government: the Tyranny of Power)

Second, if a person acknowledges that this is a nation intended to operate under the principles of self-government, but they tell you to ignore and/or reject the voices of a large part of the population, you should be wary as they are advocating an action which is contradictory to the principle they just espoused. This is a fallacious assertion and is a sure sign of deception (see: Dishonesty: the Tyranny of Deception).

Third, it is another fallacy to admit that this nation was founded by people who had a justified skepticism of government and then switch to the assertion that our “democracy belongs to us.” This is an equivocation: these two subjects are not related to each other, but the speaker here has deliberately attempted to connect them. This is an appeal to emotion: the speaker believes the audience has an emotional commitment to the notion of democracy. And it is a false assertion: this nation is not and was never intended to be a democracy. All of these are indications of a deliberate attempt to mislead and/or deceive the audience (see: Dishonesty: the Tyranny of Deception).

Fourth, we need to watch for additional signs of deception. Often times, a speaker will betray their true agenda, but you have to listen. In this case, the speaker is trying to convince the audience that he is not a tyrant and that the government he heads is not a threat. But then he actually admits that both accusations are true. However, if you do not understand your language – especially the definition of words – you might easily miss this admission. If the audience is ignorant, the speaker can usually get away with such mistakes (see: Ignorance: the Tyranny of Manipulation). However, if the audience is properly educated as to the principles and ideals of individual rights and liberty, when a speaker makes a mistake like the one in this article, it will jump out at the audience and they will reject the speaker, not those who are trying to defend those individual rights and liberty. If you will allow me, I’d like to show you how you should listen to speeches such as the one in this story:

First, you need to understand the most important definition in this story:

b :one resembling an oppressive ruler inthe harsh use of authority or power

OK, now, read these words again:

The cynics may be the loudest voices—but they accomplish the least. It’s the silent disruptors—those who do the long, hard, committed work of change—that gradually push this country in the right direction, and make the most lasting difference. [Emphasis added]

Notice how, after tying himself to the notion of democracy by giving the audience the impression that he believes in and supports something he believes the audience supports and in which it is emotionally vested, the speaker then claims that the people who make a real difference are disruptors who work silently to push change in “the right direction.”

You need to understand that these words are the antithesis of the principles governing both democracy and a representative republic!

Read them again, and think about what President Obama is saying:

1 – The voice of the opposition is not relevant, but under both democracy and a representative republic, all voices are supposed to be considered before making a national decision.

2 – Silent (i.e. behind the scenes) disruptors (i.e. subversives and revolutionaries) do the “real” work. But what does this mean the “real” work must be in Obama’s mind? If he is praising people who disrupt the current system, how can he possibly be talking about supporting that current system? And since he just tried to tie himself to democracy, and to convince his audience this nation is a democracy, isn’t he suggesting that he advocates and supports those who work in silent to destroy that same democracy?

3—Gradually pushing the nation is not the same as convincing or leading the nation. It is “Progressive” force. This is the point where he admits – through his words, supported by his past deeds – that he is actually a tyrant. Search your memory. How many stories have you read where Obama boasted he would go around Congress? How many executive orders has Obama issued after Congress refused to pass the laws he demanded? How many regulations has he directed his bureaucracies enact in direct defiance of Congress and the Courts? How many times has he refused to uphold the laws of this nation (i.e. immigration), or openly violated them (i.e. the GM bankruptcy and BP extortion)? And here he is telling the audience that the people they should look to are those who force change by destroying the existing system while working from the shadows. How is this – in any way, shape or form – “democratic?”

[NOTE: in reality, this speech is so riddled with fallacies and warning signs that one could easily write a doctorate thesis on this one speech, alone. So, please understand, I have only explained a few of the highlights in this piece. I hope they will help you start to look at all political speeches in a different light by starting to apply the principles and ideals of both logic and Natural Law to what our leaders actually say and how they say it.]

3 thoughts on “Applying the Principles of Natural Law to Our Headlines I”

Reblogged this on aurorawatcherak and commented:
Although Joe considers this to be part of a sub-series related to his Natural Law series, I think it is a good example of the deception he’s talking about, so I’ve included it. I may or may not do so with others.

When I first read President Obama’s speech (and I always read the transcripts because it cuts down on the manipulative force of his oratory), I thought “Ah, he’s talking about the administrative state.” The silent, “fourth branch” of government that gradually leads us away from the republic we were founded to be and convinces us that it is OUR idea to cede the people’s control to experts who are so much wiser than we are.

I am reading it now, Joe. This seems familiar. I’m going to guess I read it back in college as an assignment (I was a political science minor). Interesting stuff, especially since I think my original reaction to it 30 years ago was quite the opposite of what it is now. Analyzing this may be a coming post or two. Thanks!

You were preempted last night by swans swimming on the river near our house, btw. Spring is three weeks late here, but coming on like a freight train. Darn that global warming! 😉